TrackBack

Comments

If I understand Steinman's view correctly, if you have a case that is factually identical in every conceivable way to that of a recent and unanimous Supreme Court case, a lower court is free to ignore the Supreme Court's result as long as they can identify a "core rule" somewhere in the Supreme Court's opinion that the judge thinks merits the opposite result. Indeed, if the Supreme Court enters a ruling for one side and then remands, the trial court on remand is free to enter a judgement for *the other side* if the trial judge thinks that the Supreme Court misapplied its own rule. Is my understanding correct?